Introduction
The concept of coopetition was initially developed in strategic management as a paradoxical paradigm that combines the advantages of competition with those of cooperation between two or more organizations (Bengtsson & Kock, 1999, 2000; Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996). Although the extant literature on coopetition focuses mainly on innovation, R&D, and production agreements, lately several studies have started to analyze and present coopetitive alliances in marketing, deconstructing the strategic and operational elements that can enhance their viability and performance. In comparison with the previous focus on strategic alliances, inter- and intra-organizational tensions, and coopetition management, the new research incorporates the market relationships and competitive advantages, paradoxically built by collaborating with a direct or indirect competitor.
Acknowledging the increasing importance of coopetitive strategies in marketing, this chapter attempts to provide: (a) a general definition of coopetitive marketing; (b) an analysis of the transition from coopetition towards coopetitive marketing; (c) a general review of the main research contributions in coopetitive marketing; and (d) a future research agenda that maps the existing knowledge gaps that represent opportunities for further research.
Defining coopetitive marketing
Traditionally, economic theory considered competition and collaboration as opposite inter-organizational situations. In their model of the inter-organizational relationship continuum, Easton et al. (1993) define five relational situations: conflict, competition, co-existence, cooperation and collusion. From a market regulation perspective, the dichotomy between competition and cooperation is fundamental to preserve market dynamics and competitive rivalry, which ultimately benefits the consumers.
The economic theories of oligopoly reveal that collusive strategies are usually more profitable than the competitive ones (Tirole, 1989). In addition, many extant studies have shown that coopetitive strategies allow firms to achieve more profits and competitive advantages than either a pure collaborative or competitive stance (Bengtsson & Kock, 1999, 2000; Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; Lado et al., 1997; Peng et al., 2012; Ritala, 2009). On the one hand, a competitive relationship stimulates technological and managerial innovations, increases market focus, and contributes to continuous improvements in work efficiency and effectiveness. On the other hand, collaboration enhances specialization and complementarity in the value added chain, leads to economies of scale and experience, and accelerates R&D and the overall time to market. Thus, organizations able to combine and sustain these two relational models will reap the specific benefits of both competition and cooperation (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014).
According to Bengtsson and Kock (2014) or Dorn et al. (2016), the main theoretical foundations of coopetition are based on the resource-based view, game theory, and social network theory. These theoretical associations demonstrate the complex and multi-level structure of coopetition (Pellegrin-Boucher et al., 2013); if the resource-based view is strongly rooted in the organizational perspective, game theory adds the elements of relationship negotiation and management, while social network theory enlarges the category of relevant stakeholders (Akpinar & Vincze, 2016), introducing a market perspective. Social network theory also associates coopetition with the newly developed paradigm of collaborative consumption, raising the question of competition versus cooperation between the participants to the sharing economy (Schor, 2015). Nevertheless, coopetition strategies represent a complex combination of advantages and challenges, derived from their paradoxical nature. The simultaneous co-existence of competition and cooperation relations between two or more organizations (or intra-organizational departments) results in tensions at inter-organizational, intra-organizational, and inter-individual levels (Fernandez et al., 2014; Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016; Tidström, 2014).
In parallel, drawing inspiration from the existing academic and professional literature (Kotler & Keller, 2012), we define marketing as the activities realized by an organization to identify, know, understand, and satisfy its target market in order to realize a profit on a long-term perspective. Closely associated with this definition are the four areas of marketing applications: product, price, distribution, and communication. The latest marketing definitions often adopt a multi-stakeholder perspective, contending that an organization has to create value for various categories of stakeholders (e.g., employees, consumers, investors, government, and the overall society) by incorporating in its strategy and objectives the principles of social corporate responsibility (Kotler & Keller, 2012).
Considering the specific characteristics of coopetition strategy, we can define coopetitive marketing as an inter-organizational paradoxical relationship between two or more organizations that are simultaneously in a situation of competition and cooperation, developed and managed in order to better satisfy the consumers/stakeholders targeted by these organizations and to obtain a profit on a long-term perspective. In comparison with the previous definitions of coopetition, the one we propose adds the clear direct purpose of creating better value for the customers/stakeholders and a derived objective of profitability, considered from a long-term, sustainable perspective.
Transitioning from coopetition to coopetitive marketing
Although it is considered primarily a strategic management topic, many seminal papers on coopetition have been published in marketing journals, such as the papers of Bengtsson and Kock (1999 and 2000), published, respectively, in the Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing and in Industrial Marketing Management. Recently, Industrial Marketing Management published two special issues dedicated to coopetition strategies. Finally, papers on coopetition have also been published in the Journal of Marketing (Luo et al., 2006), Journal of Marketing Research (Luo et al., 2007), Journal of Business Research (Bouncken & Krauss, 2013), and in the Journal of Product and Innovation Management (Ritala & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2013).
Quite paradoxically, despite being published in marketing journals, the extant literature on coopetition is rather skewed, comprising studies focusing mainly on coopetitive agreements touching innovation (Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Fernandez et al., 2018; Gnyawali & Park, 2009, 2011), the R&D process (Bouncken et al., in press; Nemeh & Yami, 2016), or manufacturing (Ehrenmann & Reiss, 2012; Fernandez et al., 2014). Several contributions clearly indicate that the cooperative dimension of coopetition should indeed occur far from markets and far from customers (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Blomqvist et al., 2005; Walley, 2007). These studies conclude that the paradox generated by coopetition cannot be understood by customers; therefore, it must remain “hidden” from them (Bengtsson & Kock, 1999, 2000).
However, these assumptions were based on the limited number of studies describing and investigating, at that time, coopetitive agreements in marketing, commerce, or customer service. The observed reality supports the existence and need for a market-oriented coopetition (Robert et al., 2018), as the majority of inter-organizational agreements are realized at the marketing and commercial level. For example, research conducted by the Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals in 2009, highlights that forty-five percent of the total number of alliances is represented by co-marketing and commercial agreements, of which R&D and manufacturing-focused alliances represent only sixteen percent. These alliances involve either vertical supplier-client relationships, as well as, increasingly, horizontal cooperation between competing organizations. In addition, several recent contributions have highlighted the existence of coopetition in which the collaboration involves activities close to the market, such as marketing or retailing activities (Chiambaretto & Dumez, 2016; Chiambaretto et al., 2016; Lindström & Polsa, 2016; Rusko, 2011; Teller et al., 2016; Robert et al., 2018). Therefore, a stronger focus on coopetition agreements involving activities close to the market is needed.
The technological or production orientation of the existing coopetition research led to an excessive inward focus on the inter-organizational coopetition strategy, performance, and management, neglecting the impact of these agreements on customers, investors, or other categories of stakeholders. An intermediary step was made by the studies investigating the role of coopetition in supply chain functioning, performance, and coordination (Bakshi & Kleindorfer, 2009; Kwok & Lee, 2015; Lacoste, 2012; Wu et al., 2010). Because supply chain theory incorporates the inter-organizational and/or inter-departmental relationships that determine the whole range of activities, from raw materials extraction and provision to the sale and consumption of the final product on the market, these contributions can be understood as first steps towards including market research and stakeholder interests in the cooperative dimension of coopetition.
Another stream of coopetition literature considered the situation in which coopetition strategies involve, in addition to the main organizational actors, a third-party, such as a client, an institution, a union, or the government (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Castaldo et al., 2010; Depeyre & Dumez, 2010; Freel, 2003; Rindfleisch & Moorman, 2003; Wu et al., 2010). The findings of these studies provide a twofold perspective regarding the roles played by the third party in the initiation, development, facilitation, and management of the coopetitive relationship: first, the third party is considered a powerful initiator of a coopetition strategy (Depeyre & Dumez, 2010; Castaldo et al., 2010); second, the third party is often entrusted to manage collaboration in order to ensure the success of the coopetitive strategy (Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Rindfleisch & Moorman, 2003). However, it is also possible that various third parties (i.e., stakeholders) have a different attitude and involvement in coopetitive relationships.
The progressive development of the empirical base of coopetition research has created new opportunities to describe, analyze, and model the implication of coopetition for final clients—either individual or organizational—and has reinforced the idea that coopetition agreements can also occur in marketing and commercial activities. On this preliminary basis, coopetition research has built several notable contributions to marketing knowledge in several different areas.
Contributions of the coopetition literature to marketing knowledge
To present the main contributions of the coopetition literature to marketing knowledge, we choose a typology related to the main areas of marketing theory and action: market research, product portfolio, product policy, pricing, distribution, communication, and branding.
Market research
Identifying and properly understanding the profile and the behavior of the targeted customer segment(s) represents one of the main challenges and objectives of the marketing function in any organization. As the data collected and processed about consumers and competitors represent the market intelligence of the firm, organizations usually conduct market research individually, carefully protecting the findings from competitors. Firms have good reasons to protect their market intelligence because this information represents the basis of developing and implementing their marketing-mix strategy at the product, price, distribution, and communication level (Baumard, 2010; Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016). However, in some cases, small and medium-sized enterprises from the same sector may decide to share the costs of market research, which has become an important source of organizational costs. Amabile and Gadille (2006) describe such a collaboration between several French mutual insurance companies (e.g., MAIF, MACIF) that decided to share their statistics of accidents in order to achieve a more complete vision regarding the overall market profile and evolution. This represents a classic case of coopetition, as these organizations collaborate in market research and information sharing but compete fiercely in developing and commercializing insurance products. A quite similar setting is described by Kotzab & Teller (2003) regarding the Austrian grocery industry, in which some competing firms exchange knowledge based on their market research. Finally, Okura (2008) suggested that although competing firms may achieve a win-win situation by sharing information about customers, they are usually reluctant to do so.
Product portfolio
In many consumer-oriented markets, directly competing products are often part of the product portfolio of the same organizational group, being produced and commercialized though different brand names by different departments or subsidiaries of the same corporation (e.g., in the cosmetics market, both Vichy and la Roche-Posay, two brands in direct competition, are produced and commercialized by L’Oreal). Tsai (2002) and Luo (2005) provide a detailed description of the main issues surrounding the production and commercialization of competing products within the same organization; in fact, by using a combination of synergy, collaboration, and competition, these groups succeed to reduce the costs of production and commercialization—by sharing the same manufacturing facilities and logistic channels while creating a fierce competition in marketing and sales. This strategy is often hidden to the customer, as competition inflates the attractiveness and the price of products that are often highly similar.
Product development
Some companies attempt to reduce the costs of product development by collaborating with direct competitors, either by exchanging licenses (e.g., cross-licensing agreements between Samsung and Nokia, and Samsung and Ericsson), by creating common product platforms (e.g., PSA Peugeot Citroen has collaborative agreements to share platforms with several partners, including Fiat, Mitsubishi, and Toyota), or by developing and adhering to the same set of technological standards (e.g., the standard setting group in industrial automation, which includes direct competitors (Slowak, 2008). A good example of product development coopetition is provided by Gnyawali and Park (2011) regarding the collaboration between Samsung and Sony to become leaders of the LCD television screen market. As a result of their cooperation, the two companies are using the same technology to manufacture LCD TV screens; however, the branding, packaging, pricing, distribution, and commercialization of the products manufactured by the two firms are highly competitive and confrontational.
Pricing
Although the marketing theory and practice indicate that pricing strategies are highly specific to the market offer of each company, there are situations when competitors can collaborate at the price level. Robert et al. (2018) provide a good example of pricing coopetition in the real estate sector: a series of independent French retail estate agencies created the Fichier AMEPI (the French equivalent of the Multiple Listing Systems (MLS) that exists in the US), allowing them to share the commercialization of retail estate offers provided. The retail estate listings shared in the MLS could be sold either by the mandated agency—in which case the agency gets the entire commission—or by a partner/competitor participating in the MLS, in which case the mandated agency shares half of the commission with the selling one. This arrangement system is beneficial for all the parties involved, as the study shows that the real estate goods shared in this coopetitive setting are usually sold faster and at a higher price through this system than though the classical one.
Distribution
The global development of the market demand for specific products and services puts a high pressure on the distribution costs of companies. To reduce these costs and achieve a maximum exposure of their own product or service, companies from a specific sector may partner in order to share distribution costs or channels, although they may compete directly for global market shares (Pellegrin-Boucher et al., 2018). An example of this strategy is found in code-sharing agreements between airlines. These agreements allow competing airlines to extend their distribution network by accessing the network distribution of their partner/competitor (Chiambaretto & Dumez, 2016; Chiambaretto & Fernandez, 2016). Another example are the coopetitive agreements realized by the three main competing producers of ERP applications—IBM, Oracle, and SAP—for joint marketing operations and commercialization (Pellegrin-Boucher et al., 2018). Finally, regarding the distribution, Teller et al. (2016) have shown that the co-location of competing stores in the same area tends to foster coopetition between them, and this strategy indirectly increases their performance.
Communication
The exponential increase in communication costs, or a monopoly situation regarding specific communication channels, may influence competing firms to share their efforts in order to create joint communication campaigns (Lee & Shen, 2009; Samu et al., 1999). Quite paradoxically, an increasing number of competing firms have decided to join their forces and communicate together (Lindström & Polsa, 2016). It is very often the case in the tourism industry in which the local firms (hotel, theme parks) compete locally but collaborate to communicate jointly for the destination to attract tourists in the region (Pesämaa & Eriksson, 2010; Wang & Krakover, 2008). This practice, called destination marketing, is a very rich research field to study coopetition strategies with a strong marketing orientation (Czernek & Czakon, 2016; Della Corte & Aria, 2016; Grängsjö, 2003; Kylänen & Rusko, 2011). In destination marketing, coopetition strategies are initiated based on the mutual need to attract customers in the region or city and deliver enhanced value to the customers. To study this particular instance of coopetition, researchers usually adopt a case study perspective (Czernek & Czakon, 2016; Kylänen & Rusko, 2011) and/or analyze the complex relationship within the local network of coopetitors using game theory (Wang & Krakover, 2008).
Branding
Although most coopetitive agreements and relationships are hidden from final customers, the phenomenon of coopetitive co-branding is fully visible for the entire market. Chiambaretto et al. (2016) provide a comprehensive definition and typology of co-branding between competitors that they coin coopetitive branding, illustrating various categories with relevant examples from the clothing market (Vans and Spitfire) or from the food industry (Milka and Daim). The advantage of these coopetitive agreements is to associate an organization’s own brand name with the brand name of another highly recognized competitor, aiming to merge the separate consumer segments of the coopeting organizations into a larger market for the co-branded product. However, this strategy is not without risks, as the final consumer may feel betrayed and confused by this paradoxical association.
Future research agenda
The increasing penetration of marketing-related topics into the coopetitive literature signals the maturity phase of the coopetition paradigm and research. However, this is only the beginning regarding the combination of coopetition and marketing theories, as there is still much to be done. Although interesting, coopetitive marketing research is still fragmentary and anecdotal, lacking a level of abstraction that allows a balanced combination of quantitative and qualitative research.
As a future research agenda, we suggest several main areas of further development. The first one concerns the logical continuation of the existing research, developing knowledge into the main areas of marketing theory and practice while also attempting to develop integrative bridges between various application areas (see Table 33.1 for more details).
Nevertheless, other promising research directions beyond the ones studied so far should be investigated. First, the customer relationship marketing paradigm (Kumar, 2010; Reinartz et al., 2004) can also provide interesting insights into coopetitive strategies and processes, considering the competing partner as a client (or at least a stakeholder) that needs to be satisfied and preserved on a long-term basis. Second, the rapidly developing environment of the sharing economy, which blurs the differences between individuals and organizations and creates hybrid, spontaneous forms of business partnerships (Hamari et al., 2016; Walley, 2007; Zervas et al., in press), may provide interesting opportunities for coopetitive research, in terms of both theory development and application modeling. Investigating a coopetitive sharing economy could be a promising research avenue. Finally, building on the marketing literature that has used several indicators to evaluate the efficiency of marketing alliances, such as their impact on brand attitudes (Simonin & Ruth, 1998), product evaluations (Lee et al., 2013), purchase intentions (Helmig et al., 2007), and/or purchase behavior (Swaminathan et al., 2012), we think it is important to understand the impact of coopetition strategies with these indicators that are usually neglected in coopetition articles.
However, the cross-fertilization between marketing and coopetition research should not be limited only to specific research areas or market contexts but may also include the application of new research methodologies involving decision-making analysis, longitudinal studies, or quantitative surveys. In addition, we take this opportunity to call for more publications bridging the gap between strategic management and marketing to investigate coopetition strategies.
We summarize the current insights and future research perspectives on coopetitive marketing in Table 33.1.
Table 33.1Insights and future research perspectives on coopetitive marketing
Previous Insights | Example of Research Perspectives | |
Market research |
•Joint market research practices between competitors |
•Definition of the type of information shared or protected by competitors in a market research context |
Product portfolio |
•Cooperation on upstream phases between competing products in a product line of a single firm |
•Analysis of the motivations to cooperate with other product managers |
Product development |
•Joint R&D between competitors with a strong competition for the commercialization |
•Identification of tasks shared (or in competition) for the marketing development of new products |
Pricing |
•Analysis of the impact of coopetition practices on final prices |
•Definition of different pricing strategies for coopetitors |
Distribution |
•Joint distribution of products of competing firms |
•Analysis of various distribution channels or retailing strategies by coopetitors |
Communication |
•Joint communication and advertising campaigns between competing firms |
•Identification of the type of communication messages (content, media, etc.) for joint communication |
Branding |
•Development of coopetitive branding practices |
•Analysis of the determinants, management, and performance of coopetitive branding agreements |
Relationship management |
--- |
•Analysis of the relevance of customer relationship management practices to manage coopetitive relationships |
Sharing economy |
--- |
•Identification of potential similarities between the sharing economy practices and coopetitive behaviors |
Marketing indicators |
--- |
•Stronger use of marketing indicators and methods to assess the relevance of coopetition strategies for customers |
The exponential development of the coopetition literature since its foundation in the late 1990s demonstrates the validity and the relevance of this paradigm for the present market and managerial landscape. This dynamism is to be continued in the future, diversifying the topics of research and connecting the loose ends into a synthetic theoretical paradigm that can be applied to various areas of management and marketing theory and practice.
References
Akpinar, M. & Vincze, Z. (2016). The dynamics of coopetition: A stakeholder view of the German automotive industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 53–63.
Amabile, S. & Gadille, M. (2006). Coopération interentreprise, système d’information et attention organisationnelle. Revue française de gestion, 164, 97–118.
Bakshi, N. & Kleindorfer, P. (2009). Co-opetition and investment for supply-chain resilience. Production and Operations Management, 18(6), 583–603.
Baumard, P. (2010). Learning in coopetitive environments. In S. Yami, S. Castaldo, G. B. Dagnino, & F. Le Roy (Eds), Coopetition: Winning Strategies for the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (1999). Cooperation and competition in relationships between competitors in business networks. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 14(3), 178–194.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (2000). “Coopetition” in business networks—to cooperate and compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.
Bengtsson, M. & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition—Quo vadis? Past accomplishments and future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180–188.
Blomqvist, K., Hurmelinna, P., & Seppänen, R. (2005). Playing the collaboration game right—balancing trust and contracting. Technovation, 25(5), 497–504.
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., Ritala, P., & Kraus, S. (in press). Coopetition in new product development alliances: advantages and tensions for incremental and radical innovation. British Journal of Management.
Bouncken, R. B. & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060–2070.
Brandenburger, A. M. & Nalebuff, B. J. (1996). Co-Opetition: A Revolutionary Mindset That Redefines Competition and Cooperation (Vol. 121). New York: Doubleday.
Castaldo, S., Moellering, G., Grosso, M., & Zerbini, F. (2010). Exploring how third-party organizations facilitate co-opetition management in buyer–seller relationships. In S. Yami, S. Castaldo, G. B. Dagnino, & F. Le Roy (Eds), Coopetition: Winning Strategies for the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Chiambaretto, P. & Dumez, H. (2016). Toward a typology of coopetition: a multilevel approach. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(2–3), 110–129.
Chiambaretto, P. & Fernandez, A.-S. (2016). The evolution of coopetitive and collaborative alliances in an alliance portfolio: The Air France case. Industrial Marketing Management, 57,
Chiambaretto, P., Gurău, C., & Le Roy, F. (2016). Coopetitive branding: Definition, typology, benefits and risks. Industrial Marketing Management, 57, 86–96.
Czernek, K. & Czakon, W. (2016). Trust-building processes in tourist coopetition: The case of a Polish region. Tourism Management, 52, 380–394.
Della Corte, V. & Aria, M. (2016). Coopetition and sustainable competitive advantage. The case of tourist destinations. Tourism Management, 54, 524–540.
Depeyre, C. & Dumez, H. (2010). The role of architectural players in coopetition: the case of the US defense industry. In S. Yami, S. Castaldo, G. B. Dagnino, & F. Le Roy (Eds), Coopetition: Winning Strategies for the 21st Century (p. 124). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dorn, S., Schweiger, B., & Albers, S. (2016). Levels, phases and themes of coopetition: A systematic literature review and research agenda. European Management Journal, 34(5), 484–500.
Easton, G., Burell, G., Rotschild, R., & Shearman, C. (1993). Managers and Competition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Ehrenmann, F. & Reiss, M. (2012). Co-opetition as a facilitator of manufacturing competitiveness: opportunities and threats. In H. El Maraghi (Eds), Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability. Berlin: Springer.
Fernandez, A.-S. & Chiambaretto, P. (2016). Managing tensions related to information in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 66–76.
Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Sources and management of tension in co-opetition case evidence from telecommunications satellites manufacturing in Europe. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 222–235.
Fernandez, A.-S., Le Roy, F., & Chiambaretto, P. (2018). Implementing the right project structure to achieve coopetitive innovation projects. Long Range Planning, 51(2), 384–405.
Freel, M. S. (2003). Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy, 32(5), 751–770.
Gnyawali, D. R. & Park, B.-J. (2009). Co-opetition and technological innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A multilevel conceptual model. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 308–330.
Gnyawali, D. R. & Park, B.-J. (2011). Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 650–663.
Grängsjö, Y. von F. (2003). Destination networking: Co-opetition in peripheral surroundings. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33(5), 427–448.
Hamari, J., Sjöklint, M., & Ukkonen, A. (2016). The sharing economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.
Helmig, B., Huber, J.-A., & Leeflang, P. (2007). Explaining behavioural intentions toward co-branded products. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(3/4), 285–304.
Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L. (2012). Marketing Management. Paris: Pearson France.
Kotzab, H. & Teller, C. (2003). Value-adding partnerships and co-opetition models in the grocery industry. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 33(3), 268–281.
Kumar, V. (2010). Customer Relationship Management. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Kwok, J. J. M. & Lee, D.-Y. (2015). Coopetitive supply chain relationship model: application to the smartphone manufacturing network. PLOS One, 10(7), e0132844.
Kylänen, M. & Rusko, R. (2011). Unintentional coopetition in the service industries: The case of Pyhä-Luosto tourism destination in the Finnish Lapland. European Management Journal, 29(3), 193–205.
Lacoste, S. (2012). “Vertical coopetition”: The key account perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 649–658.
Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110–141.
Lee, J. K., Lee, B.-K., & Lee, W.-N. (2013). Country-of-origin fit’s effect on consumer product evaluation in cross-border strategic brand alliance. Journal of Business Research, 66(3), 354–363.
Lee, S. Y. & Shen, F. (2009). Joint advertising and brand congruity: Effects on memory and attitudes. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 484–498.
Lindström, T. & Polsa, P. (2016). Coopetition close to the customer—A case study of a small business network. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 207–215.
Luo, X., Rindfleisch, A., & Tse, D. K. (2007). Working with rivals: The impact of competitor alliances on financial performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 73–83.
Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67–80.
Luo, Y. (2005). Toward coopetition within a multinational enterprise: a perspective from foreign subsidiaries. Journal of World Business, 40(1), 71–90.
Nemeh, A. & Yami, S. (2016). The determinants of the emergence of coopetition strategy in R&D. International Studies of Management & Organization, 46(2–3), 159–178.
Okura, M. (2008). Why isn’t the accident information shared? A coopetition perspective. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 6(3), 219–225.
Pellegrin-Boucher, E., Le Roy, F., & Gurău, C. (2018). Managing selling coopetition: A case study of the ERP industry. European Management Review, 15(1), 37–56.
Pellegrin-Boucher, E., Le Roy, F., & Gurău, C. (2013). Coopetitive strategies in the ICT sector: typology and stability. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(1), 71–89.
Peng, T.-J. A., Pike, S., Yang, J. C.-H., & Roos, G. (2012). Is cooperation with competitors a good idea? An example in practice. British Journal of Management, 23(4), 532–560.
Pesämaa, O. & Eriksson, P.-E. (2010). Coopetition among nature-based tourism firms: Competition at local level and cooperation at destination level. In S. Yami, S. Castaldo, B. Dagnino, & F. Le Roy (Eds), Coopetition: Winning Strategies for the 21st Century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Reinartz, W., Krafft, M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2004). The customer relationship management process: Its measurement and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(3), 293–305.
Rindfleisch, A. & Moorman, C. (2003). Interfirm cooperation and customer orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 421–436.
Ritala, P. (2009). Is coopetition different from cooperation? The impact of market rivalry on value creation in alliances. International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, 3(1), 39–55.
Ritala, P. & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition—the role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 154–169.
Robert, M., Chiambaretto, P., Mira, B., & Le Roy, F. (2018). Better, faster, stronger: The impact of market-oriented coopetition on product commercial performance. M@n@gement, 21(1), 574–610.
Rusko, R. (2011). Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 311–320.
Samu, S., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, R. E. (1999). Using advertising alliances for new product introduction: Interactions between product complementarity and promotional strategies. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 57–74.
Schor, J. (2015). Getting sharing right. Contexts, 14(1), 14–15.
Simonin, B. L. & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.
Slowak, A. (2008). Standard-setting capabilities in industrial automation: a collaborative process. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 2, 147–169.
Swaminathan, V., Reddy, S. K., & Dommer, S. L. (2012). Spillover effects of ingredient branded strategies on brand choice: A field study. Marketing Letters, 23(1), 237–251.
Teller, C., Alexander, A., & Floh, A. (2016). The impact of competition and cooperation on the performance of a retail agglomeration and its stores. Industrial Marketing Management, 52, 6–17.
Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 261–271.
Tirole, J. (1989). The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tsai, W. (2002). Social Structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179–190.
Walley, K. (2007). Coopetition: An introduction to the subject and an agenda for research. International Studies of Management and Organization, 37(2), 11–31.
Wang, Y. & Krakover, S. (2008). Destination marketing: competition, cooperation or coopetition? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2), 126–141.
Wu, Z., Choi, T. Y., & Rungtusanatham, M. J. (2010). Supplier–supplier relationships in buyer–supplier–supplier triads: Implications for supplier performance. Journal of Operations Management, 28(2), 115–123.
Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (in press). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research.